Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONSERVATIVE TRUTH: WARRIOR WOMEN
ConservativeTruth.org ^ | 4/14/03 | Tom Barrett

Posted on 04/14/2003 5:54:57 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative

CONSERVATIVE TRUTH 04/14/03

WARRIOR WOMEN
By Tom Barrett
Editor@ConservativeTruth.org

Yesterday Coalition forces held over 7,000 Iraqi POW's (not counting the thousands who surrendered and were released after giving up their weapons). The Iraqis held seven American POW's. Today they hold none. Even as we rejoice over the rescue of these seven, the fact that three women (one of whom was murdered while in captivity) have been among the prisoners of war held by brutal Iraqi troops has re-ignited the debate over the role of women in armed combat.

Should women be in combat? There was a time in this nation when that question would have brought a laugh. That couldn't be a serious question, because everyone knew the answer: NO WAY! Today, thanks to radical feminism, a good portion of America doesn't see anything wrong with women risking (and losing) their lives in combat.

"Well, what's the problem, Tom? Aren't women equal? Shouldn't they accept equal risk?" Well, if it were true that men and women were equal in every way, the concept of equal risk in combat situations might be valid. But, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out earlier this week, the risk women face on the front lines is far greater than the risk men face. We'll get back to that.

Right now, let's look at whether men and women are really equal. I wholeheartedly agree that women should have equal opportunity in every walk of life. Gender should not be an excuse to hold women back from achieving their potential. But both the Bible and nature clearly teach us that women and men are not equal in certain areas.

Let's start with nature. In general, men are stronger than women. Yes, I'm sure you can point to certain women that are as strong as most men, and a few who are stronger. So can I. But in general, women do not have the physical strength necessary to carry an injured male warrior to safety. Research at West Point has proven this conclusively. This not a reflection on the courage of women. All of us were proud of Private First Class Jessica Lynch as she emptied her weapon into advancing Iraqis before she was captured. But Jessica appears to weigh about 110 pounds. Any of her male comrades could have picked her up if she were shot and carried her to a safe place. She could have done the same for very few of them.

If you don't think that's a serious concern, talk to any of our servicemen when the PC police aren't around. When I served in the Marine Corps, the greatest fear my fellow warriors expressed was not getting shot. They knew that was a strong possibility, but they also knew that the Navy corpsmen attached to the Marines were the best in the world. No, the fear that kept some up at night was that of being left behind. Today's warriors are no different. If anything, the fear may be magnified because early reports indicate that the Iraqis treat POW's even more brutally than did the Viet Cong of my era.

The United States has found a simple solution to the problem of strength differences between men and women. Our military academies and services have simply lowered the physical requirements (as have police and fire departments nationwide) to allow women to serve as "equals" in dangerous situations. Canada, to its credit, continues to require the same qualifications of both sexes. Between 1991 and 1992, 102 Canadian women enlisted for infantry training. Only one graduated.

What does the Bible have to say on this subject? Without quoting dozens of verses, let me simply summarize the teaching of the Word. Men are supposed to protect heir families, including their wives. Wives are not supposed to protect their husbands. Yet today we see women going off to combat while their husbands stay home to care for their small children. Some of the children are so young they are still nursing. Politically correct? Indeed. Dumb? You bet.

In the Bible when God sent His people out to fight evil, the word "warrior" always meant men only. The Bible says that God never changes - He is the same "yesterday, today and forever." I suspect that He has not changed His view on this subject just because society has changed its views.

The feminists (I love Rush's term: Femi-Nazis) want equality for women. They say that includes equal risk. Rush is usually pretty funny, but this week he pointed out a very serious INequality as far as women POW's are concerned. Women actually face far

MORE risk than men if captured, especially in brutal Arab nations. Does anyone doubt that Jessica Lynch was sexually abused while she was POW? The Pentagon refuses to talk about it. Jessica refuses to talk about it, as does her family.

I respect her right to privacy, but let's be honest. Cowards like the Iraqi "soldiers" who use their own women and children as shields, who degrade women as a matter of course, wouldn't hesitate five seconds to rape any female "infidel" that came under their control. Even if her injuries protected her from such treatment (which is doubtful, considering the way everyone refuses to even discuss the issue), you can be sure that most women in such circumstances will suffer far worse than men. I read one feminist writer's article on this subject in which she claimed that Iraqi soldiers would be just as likely to sodomize male POW's as they would to sexually assault young female POW's. This woman obviously doesn't have a clue about Arab culture.

If you doubt that nineteen-year-old Jessica Lynch feared sexual assault at the hands of her captors, listen to how the Army PIO (Public Information Officer) described the way she tried to avoid capture. "She was fighting to the death. She didn't want to be taken alive." Didn't want to be taken alive? Does that sound like someone who thought she would be treated the same as a male POW?

And what about the women who don't want all this equality? Do you realize that the Femi-Nazis have engineered things so that if the draft is re-established young women will be forced into combat roles? The 1948 Combat Exclusion Act barred women from serving in roles that would involve them in combat. In 1981 the US Supreme Court ruled that a prohibition on drafting women was Constitutional "...since the purpose of draft registration is to develop a pool of potential combat troops." Since Bill Clinton and his Democrat cronies in Congress were able to sneak through legislation that effectively repealed the 1948 Act, the rationale the Supremes used in excluding women from the draft no longer exists. Since they can now be placed in combat roles, they can also be drafted.

Young ladies, this means that you can, and probably will be, drafted. At some point the Democrats will re-institute the draft (Democrat Charles Rangel is already calling for it). And guess what? You won't get to choose where you serve. They won't ask you whether you want to serve where you might be killed, any more than they ask male soldiers whether they want to share shower facilities with homosexuals. When you're in the service, you do as you're told, or you end up in jail.

Israel has more experience with women in actual combat situations than does any other nation. Today many women serve in the military, but contrary to popular myth, they are not allowed to serve in combat roles. During the 1948 War of Liberation tens of

thousands of young Jewish women served beside males. In 1950 the Israeli Knessett ruled that women could no longer serve in combat roles. The reason? In addition to the morale problems caused by sexual relations between the troops, a major problem was observed that caused the generals to forever ban women from combat. They found that "...men tended to protect the women in their units rather than carrying out their mission."

There's a thought. Men should protect women. Only let's do it the right way. Let the women stay home, and let the men be men.

For decades men and women of honor voted time and again in Congress to resist any attempt to overturn the Combat Exclusion Act. During his first term, "Spineless Bill" Clinton, pandering to the feminist and lesbian vote, sneaked through a provision allowing to serve in armed combat roles by attaching it to an appropriations bill. There was no national debate on the issue. It was politics as usual: If you know the American people won't approve of a measure, slip it in when no one is looking.

It's not too late to overturn this travesty. Tell your senators and congressmen to locate their spines, stiffen them up, and take us back to a time of honor, when men protected women instead of hiding behind them.





THE BEST OF THE BEST: For great conservative commentary, visit our website to see what outstanding conservative authors (many of whom write only for this site) have to say about what is happening in our world. Below are previews of the new articles that are posted every Monday morning. To read the entire articles, visit our website, www.ConservativeTruth.org.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: combat; feminism; iraq; jessicalynch; pow; women; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 04/14/2003 5:54:57 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: YoungKentuckyConservative
"The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires."

And this is the opinion of a woman that was assigned to a Presidential commission during the Clinton years!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0304130445apr13,1,1012816.story

First female captives held at greater risk

By Elaine Donnelly. Elaine Donnelly, a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, is president of the Center for Military Readiness

April 13, 2003

It is impossible not to be moved by the dramatic stories of three female soldiers and their male colleagues captured from an ambushed maintenance unit in Iraq. First we saw the frightened face of POW Army Spec. Shoshana Johnson, the single mother of a 2-year-old, and the grisly sight of fellow soldiers killed nearby.

Then we saw Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a courageous and severely injured 19-year-old soldier, who was rescued in a mission rarely executed successfully in the past 50 years. Special Forces soldiers and Marines had to dig with their bare hands to retrieve from shallow graves the bodies of eight more soldiers from the same unit. Among the dead was Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian and single mother of two children.

These stories inspire a wide range of emotions, including pride in the brave women who are serving their country. Military policies regarding women in combat cannot be based on singular stories, however. The views of enlisted women, who outnumber female officers by more than five to one, differ from those who aspire to flag rank. A 1998 General Accounting Office report, quoting a Rand study, found that only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed that "Women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men."

Many people, including the surprised and dismayed family of Spec. Johnson, thought that women could serve their country without undue exposure to close combat. But in 1994, then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin quietly abolished the Defense Department's "Risk Rule," which spared women in support units from assignments close to the front line. Aspin also eliminated "substantial risk of capture" as a factor that exempted women from involuntary assignment in or near hundreds of previously all-male positions. Exceptions include the infantry, armor, multiple launch field artillery, Special Operations Forces and helicopters, Navy SEALS, and submarines.

The controversial rule changes were billed as career enhancers, even though military women have been promoted for decades at rates equal to or faster than men. In trying to please feminists who want other women to pay the price, Aspin ignored the advice of experienced combat leaders.

The commission compiled a huge body of credible evidence that in close combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. It is easy to talk about "sharing the risk" of war, but few women have the strength to cope with physical burdens, including high-tech equipment, that exceed weights carried by Julius Caesar's Roman legionnaires.

A recent survey of military personnel conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that only 36 percent of both sexes agreed that women would pull their fair share of the load in combat or hazardous situations.

The International Red Cross and other experts on prisoners of war have also reported inequalities in the treatment of male and female prisoners. Brutality that is uniquely cruel to women, including sexual assault and rape, frequently has been used as a weapon of war against women, but rarely men.

A majority of presidential commissioners recognized that official endorsement of gender-neutral violence in combat would not be a step forward for women, but a step backward for civilization. At times the nation has had no choice but to send men to defend America. We do have a choice about sending young women, including single mothers, to fight our wars. If women in support roles are to be subjected to combat violence and "substantial risk of capture" on an equal basis, the American people need to think hard about what that really means.
2 posted on 04/14/2003 5:59:10 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
LOOK! Another Freeper Just Gave To The Cause! WAY TO GO!
We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one! Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 04/14/2003 6:00:28 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
We don't need women in combat. We already got the likes of Belly Girl doing all the fighting we need for us at right here at home!!!
4 posted on 04/14/2003 6:01:31 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YoungKentuckyConservative
When I was young and arrogant, a deceived product of the collapse of society in the 60s and 70s, a constant stream of Feminist Speak oozed from my lips. Men and women are exactly the same...blah blah yada yada. Then I had children. The first time I took them to the beach, 3 babies under the age of 5, I instinctively looked for the biggest, strongest male lifeguard and parked them there under his watchful eyes. Things were never the same after that revelation.
5 posted on 04/14/2003 6:07:41 AM PDT by DC native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YoungKentuckyConservative
Women serving in the military is one thing. But putting women in combat is immoral.
6 posted on 04/14/2003 6:08:52 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
Any women in an infantry platoon would cause the deaths of the entire platoon
and compromise the mission...
To have had a woman along in my unit in Vietnam would have been insane..
The only mission that would have been accomplished would have been human sacrafice to the gods of femanism
7 posted on 04/14/2003 6:21:34 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Women serving in the military is one thing. But putting women in combat is immoral.

Really! All those men sitting in desks jobs in the States, while teenage girls and single mothers (whole 'nother can of worms ...) are in combat.

I see my "female" role in national defense as raising boys and teaching them to love their country and to SHOOT. And voting Republican, for what it's worth!

8 posted on 04/14/2003 6:25:12 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Iraqi liberation! It's a beautiful sight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: YoungKentuckyConservative
Should women be in combat?

No. And I'll go even further than that.

Women should not be training with men in the military. There should be a return to the separation of the sexes. There should be a "Women's Army Corps," "Women's Air Force," etc. A return to WACs, WAVEs, WAFs and the like.

Extremely politically incorrect.

Extremely correct for the adequate defense of our nation, which is, after all, a defense of our fundamental values, NOT of the right of McDonald's to sell "Big Macs" throughout the world.

10 posted on 04/14/2003 6:30:11 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
well said, agree 100%
11 posted on 04/14/2003 6:38:53 AM PDT by apackof2 (My tagline has gone missing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Women should not be training with men in the military. There should be a return to the separation of the sexes.

Excellent point, would love to see this, although there would be an enormous outcry ( and battle) from femi-nazis and miltary lesbians

12 posted on 04/14/2003 6:42:53 AM PDT by apackof2 (My tagline has gone missing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
femi-nazis and miltary lesbians

In other words:

DACOWITS

13 posted on 04/14/2003 6:46:03 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DC native
Yep, we're different and designed to be completely complementary. Ain't it great?

I have known women who I would trust in a tight spot much more than some men I've known, so genetics and biologic tendencies will only take you so far. But to take the radical feminist left position that the differences are non-existent or irrelevant is sheer insanity.

14 posted on 04/14/2003 7:05:41 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
"Should women be in combat?"

NOPE!
15 posted on 04/14/2003 7:12:55 AM PDT by 429CJ (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
"Women in combat is immoral."

Yeah--but guys like it.

Did you ever stop to think that THIS issue and the abortion issue have a similar underlying proposition: that men can evade responsibility by foisting it on women???

16 posted on 04/14/2003 7:19:51 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I went to that DACOWITS (s/b NITWITS) website.

One of the topics discussed was:

"Family Planning briefings from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard should include:
type of training and how it is imparted
information concerning breastfeeding
prenatal, natal and postnatal training."

Really contributes to making warriors that our enemies will fear.
17 posted on 04/14/2003 7:20:05 AM PDT by 429CJ (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I see my "female" role in national defense as raising boys and teaching them to love their country and to SHOOT. And voting Republican, for what it's worth!

Sometimes voting Republican ain't worth much...

And as an American daddy, I teach my girls to love their country, think and act conservatively, and to SHOOT!!

They're pretty good at that, too.

18 posted on 04/14/2003 7:21:41 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 429CJ
If you really get into their position papers, you find horrifying stuff, like calls for ALL combat positions to be open to women, and further, for there to be "affirmative action" processes to make sure that women are put in those positions.

People here wonder where the "dumbing down" of standards for combat soldiers came from

DACOWITS is the answer.
19 posted on 04/14/2003 7:26:59 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 429CJ
Oh, and understand: DACOWITS is NOT some "non-partisan think tank." It is an official committee OF THE U.S. MILITARY. Ignoring their recommendations can, if you have a Clinton administration in power, for example, spell the end of your military career.
20 posted on 04/14/2003 7:28:09 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson